Renee Ann Shirley was an investigator, she wasn't another athlete or coach purporting to blow the whistle on their colleagues - which is what some here think is where most whistleblowers come from. Shirley spent a lot of time investigating Jamaican sport and the nature of doping in pro sport generally. It gained her death threats. But experts like her are a minority.
The point about whistleblowers in individual sports is that an athlete is likely to know no more about what their colleagues are doing than they would know about their tax liabilities. That is unless athletes are careless enough to talk about what they are doing. Suspicions aren't "whistleblowing".
The more you say, the more we know the less you know. We've known for years you can't even spell her name. Renee Anne Shirley was not an investigator, so you start off on the wrong foot in the wrong direction. As Executive Director of JADCO, the whistle she blew was not about any athletes, but about Jamaican Anti-Doping not conducting OOC tests for its Jamaican sprinters before the 2012 London Olympics. As a vocal anti-doping advocate, her criticisms are about WADA and its structure and dependencies and the failures of anti-doping administration and recommendations of what it should be -- and not about any specific athletes doping in any sport.
As such, all of your doubts and questions remain applicable to her: "Doping in track is an individual activity. How do whistleblowers know what anyone else is doing? Do they know their competitors' tax liabilities as well? Do dopers tell other runners what they are doing? What is the incentive to be a whistleblower? In cycling whistleblowing came as part of a team and from cyclists who had been caught doping and were hoping for a lighter sanction. That isn't the environment in track."
Did you mean these words when you wrote them?
I didn't say she accused specific athletes, f***wit. I have read articles she has written, in which she expressed the points that I have referred to, and chiefly her conclusions that doping is at the top levels of all sports and in all countries. Obviously, you haven't read them and are only interested in issues of accreditation. Funny that, since you have none.
True. But - he only blew the whistle to decrease his ban after getting caught, and only on the coach, right? Clearly the coach had help from a pharmacist/chemist/scientist/supplier, so it was quite limited whistle-blowing.
As we all know, most dopers don't even admit guilt, let alone name names if do plead guilty. Quite interesting, actually, especially that 2nd part. Something like: "I did it, yes, please give me only a 3 year ban instead of a 4 year ban. But I did all alone, so I cannot name names, and don't deserve a reduction down to 2 years."
I assume that every top athlete is doping until they are tested. High school and college times have dropped on a large scale because most aren't tested. Tuohy? No test. Slagowski? No test. Maton? No test.
True. But - he only blew the whistle to decrease his ban after getting caught, and only on the coach, right? Clearly the coach had help from a pharmacist/chemist/scientist/supplier, so it was quite limited whistle-blowing.
As we all know, most dopers don't even admit guilt, let alone name names if do plead guilty. Quite interesting, actually, especially that 2nd part. Something like: "I did it, yes, please give me only a 3 year ban instead of a 4 year ban. But I did all alone, so I cannot name names, and don't deserve a reduction down to 2 years."
He also named the Atlanta chiropracter and anti-aging clinic specialist that supplied his treatments to many athletes (mostly NFL).
But you say this almost like it's a bad thing. We need more athletes providing substantial assistance to anti-doping authorities. Offering offenders a reduced sentence in exchange for bigger apples is a necessary tool for enforcement authorities.
Cheating still exists, always will, but obviously not as widespread as it was up to 1988 olympics before drug testing got more serious with random testing out of competition.
Merely being clean for a championship was far too easy prior to 1988.
Today, cheating is much harder but there is likely to be those who know how to master microdosing.
Corruption is also more probable in some countries.
Each year the testing becomes more sophisticated and much harder to cheat, but it may always be a catch up game.
.
Doping is much worse now than it was in the 80s,and a lot more widespread. Compare todays athletes physiques to those from the 80s,and todays athletes are much more muscled,and freakish looking. Only stacking does that. Diet,and training alone doesnt do that,and neither does micro dosing. They look like cyborgs. These days you even see densely muscled yet super lean scrawny stick insects,something that should be impossible,naturally.
Did you see Yohan Blake at that London DL meet? Whoa...he's built like an NFL running back. 😲
Do many naive or purposely ignorant people posting. I threw at a large D1 school and not only was doping widespread , it was expected. Watched teammates do it. New of competitors that did it. Made it my mission to try and beat them clean. Often failed. Sometimes I would be successful. But had coaches tell me "just imagine if you had the extra....." That's what I found funny. It was widely known , widely pushed and nobody ever wanted to openly say it. I transferred to a small NAIA school. No pressure to do anything but just do me.
Doping in track and field is widespread folks. Sorry to ruin your day.
Do many naive or purposely ignorant people posting. I threw at a large D1 school and not only was doping widespread , it was expected. Watched teammates do it. New of competitors that did it. Made it my mission to try and beat them clean. Often failed. Sometimes I would be successful. But had coaches tell me "just imagine if you had the extra....." That's what I found funny. It was widely known , widely pushed and nobody ever wanted to openly say it. I transferred to a small NAIA school. No pressure to do anything but just do me.
Doping in track and field is widespread folks. Sorry to ruin your day.
But there is a regular poster here who says doping doesn't help, and especially marathon runners, and another who says it cannot work because it doesn't increase energy. So what were your team-mates thinking!
Renee Anne Shirley is one of the world’s leading anti-doping experts. Also a whistleblower who shed light on lax anti-doping practices in Jamaica, she shares her thoughts on the IAAF, WADA an…
"My current position is that doping is prevalent at the elite level across sport & across nations. Testing now being carried out is largely ineffective and most cheaters are not being caught."
Of course untested (or poorly tested) youngsters can be on all sorts of PEDs. Try googling "teenagers on steroids". Some of them openly brag about it on social media, some even became famous (un)fitness influencers (e.g., Sam Sulek, Tren Twins).
If meatheads can openly take dangerous, mostly illegal stuff with effects visible to everyone, why should we believe that runners cannot do the same while maintaining plausible deniability?
Greg Doucette (former pro bodybuilder, current coach and popular YouTuber) says that parents of teenagers contact him all the time asking for info about 'supersupplements' that could give their spawns an edge in career.
The fact that there arent more whistleblowers makes me wonder too. Like surely there are college kids going pro, only to realize everyone is doping, and take a moral stance against it. Doesnt seem that has ever happened. Like i personally dont like the negative health implications of doping. And everyone else is cool with it? Most these people have other options in life.
Doping is pretty easy to conceal from teammates. Only an ex would be intimate enough to see what someone was taking and have desire to turn someone in.
